HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 31: HALLOWEEN (1978)

We made it! We survived! Here we are at long last, the finish line! Happy Halloween, everyone! I should've held off on this one for another couple of years, but I decided 2015 would be the year I gave a write up of my all-time favorite horror film: John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN. At one time it was the most successful independent motion picture of all time (until Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles beat it out in 1990). More financially successful than the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and arguably more influential. JOHN CARPENTER solidified his career when he made Halloween.

The Slasher film owes a great deal to Halloween. Halloween wasn't the first horror film to have a masked killer stalk unsuspecting victims. THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN (1976), TORSO (1973), the 1970's Giallo films of Italy, and PSYCHO (1960). All of these films had the basic elements of what is now referred to as Slasher films. In fact Carpenter has cited the giallo films of DARIO ARGENTO as influences on Halloween. But none of them have quite the perfect blueprint for the Slasher genre that Halloween has. Nor do any of them have a villain as effective as MICHAEL MYERS (this is arguable I'll grant you). Add in Carpenter's brilliant directing and DEAN CUNDEY's amazing cinematography, the most frightening and memorable horror film score you've ever heard, and the incredible acting skill of DONALD PLEASENCE and what you get is one of the greatest horror films ever made.

THE PLOT

In 1963 six year old Michael Myers stabbed his sister to death. Shortly thereafter he slipped into a catatonic state and was admitted into a psychiatric hospital. In all the time he spent at the hospital he never talked, never moved, and remained mentally vacant or so it would seem. 15 years later on October 30th 1978 Michael Myers escaped the Smith's Grove county sanitarium. The next day, October 31st, he stalked and killed 4 people before being shot 6 times by his former doctor, Sam Loomis. When Dr. Loomis approached the body of his former patient the body was gone. The nightmare had only just started.

THE GOOD

Where does one begin? How about the villainous boogie man Michael Myers? He doesn't speak. He only walks. And he is inhumanly patient. This is the kind of demeanor the character exhibits from beginning to end. Separately these mannerisms aren't much but combined they give a subtle inhuman quality to him. Add the haunting white featureless mask (originally a Captain Kirk mask!), he comes across monstrous and sinister, the embodiment of everything we fear. His statuesque demeanor is unnerving. The fact that he wears a mask and doesn't speak takes away what human qualities he may have had. He can't be reasoned with or bargained with or dissuaded. He's like the shark in JAWS or a force of nature.

In the original film it is never revealed why he is killing nor why he chooses the victims he does. It is seemingly random. And that's what is most terrifying, not knowing why. Of course the character is further developed in the sequels and we learn his motivations for the first film, but at first he is a complete mystery. This has since become the usual villainous archetype for these kinds of films but Michael Myers was the first. Even Jason Voorhees eventually appropriate many of Michael's mannerisms. One of the strengths of Halloween that many of its countless imitators lacked was a truly terrifying villain (one of my criticisms of the original Friday the 13th).

The Cinematography. It's usually a safe bet that you never receive any technical merits worthy of note in most horror movies. Here on the other hand the cinematography is nigh Hitchcockian in precision. The opening scene we experience in first person POV, tracking around the outside of a house, inside and up the stairs where we watch as the person's POV we're peaking through kill someone in cold blood, then back down the steps and out the front door, all seemingly in one continuous shot. The camera shifts and suddenly we see whose POV we were watching, that of a six year old boy. And that's only the beginning.

Carpenter fully utilizes widescreen camera format. Throughout the film we are privy to shots where the camera slowly pans back until we see a shoulder or only the tiniest part of the killer. The killer's presence is felt throughout the film in little reveals like these, driving home the uncomfortable voyeuristic feeling. Again the audience is essentially placed in the killer's POV stalking his victims right alongside him. Before Widescreen televisions these scenes were cropped on the edges cropping Michael Myers completely out of the shot. Watching this movie was when I truly realized the differences between widescreen and full screen formats.

The Score. This film was made early in Carpenter's career back when he was serving double and sometimes quadruple duty on a film writing, directing, editing, and even scoring his movies. He does so here on Halloween and delivers some of the most iconic and recognizable music of any genre, certainly among horror films. The music has become as much a part of the Halloween franchise as Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis. It's a character as essential to the success of these films as Michael is. Carpenter has never topped this score in my opinion and with maybe the exception of Jaws or Insidious there are very few horror film scores as effective.

THE BAD

I got nothing. I suppose you could say that the film is a little dated by today's standards but if not for Halloween we wouldn't have half the horror films we have today. It is a little light on graphic violence and gore but I wouldn't exactly call that a weakness of the film but rather a choice on the part of the director. In the extended cut we find out that Michael Myer's middle name is Audrey. That's not a very good middle name for a boy. Some of Dr. Loomis's monologues are little too melodramatic but actor Donald Pleasence sells it so well that it works beautifully. All in all I got nothing bad to say about this movie. I am totally biased so take this as it is.

THE VERDICT

The Halloween films were my first modern horror loves. Of all the horror franchises out there that I enjoy I prefer the Halloween franchise above all else. Just as the 1932 FRANKENSTEIN marked a turning point in horror cinema so too did PSYCHO in 1960 and Halloween did it again in 1978. This movie is my all time favorite horror film. If you've followed me this far then what else need be said except... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! If you haven't yet please join me in a scary movie tonight after the trick r' treating has grinded to a halt. Until next October, I hope you all enjoyed this season of horror films as much as I did. And remember, "It's Halloween. I guess everyone is entitled to one good scare, huh?"

Overall Ranking: 10 out of 10

Nude-O-Meter: 3 out of 10

Are you as big a fan of the Halloween franchise as I am? Then check out these posts linked below...

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Rob Zombie's Halloween

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Rob Zombie's Halloween II

HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 30: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992)

One of the most redone and reproduced horror stories in cinema is the story of Dracula. Starting way back in 1922 with F.W. Murnau's NOSFERATU, my personal favorite vampire film. Then of course there is Tod Browning's 1931 classic DRACULA starring the legendary BELA LUGOSI. Then the amazing JOHN CARRADINE played Dracula in HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945) and HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944). Following those Hammer Studios in England released their version starring CHRISTOPHER LEE and PETER CUSHING known in America as THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958). PAUL NASCHY, UDO KIER, and JACK PALANCE too donned the cape as Dracula in 1973 and 1974. And who could forget FRANK LANGELLA and KLAUS KINSKI in 1979. I could keep going but I think you get the point.

In 1992 Academy Award winning director FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA, infamous director of the GODFATHER, added his name to the long list of directors to have retold Bram Stoker's Dracula. His cast included Gary Oldman as Dracula, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins (a year after winning the Academy Award for Silence of the Lambs). Coppola is admittedly a fan of the story and has long desired to do his own rendition of the Dracula mythos. What resulted was a truly unique interpretation of a story that has has been remade and redone to death.

THE PLOT

Count Dracula is looking to spread his sphere of influence beyond the borders of Transylvania and Romania. Through various intermediaries he has come into possession of Carfax Abbey in London. When hosting his real estate agent, Jonathan Harker, at Castle Dracula he sees a picture of Harker's fiancee, Mina. The Count believes that Mina is the reincarnation of his long dead love Elisabeta. Dracula moves to London with all haste, his vampiric brides keeping Harker captive. Harker escapes Castle Dracula and rallies a vampire hunting posse with the help of vampire expert Van Helsing. The battle for Mina's heart and the dual with the devil begins.

THE GOOD

The Style. I remember watching this film when I was inappropriately young and thinking it was brilliant. Then I next watched it in college and suddenly the film became absurd, rife with overacting, over-the-top effects (even for over-the-top horror films), and sheer moments of ludicrousness. Today while watching it I saw the film in yet another light. It seems obvious now that Coppola crafted his film in the style of his favorite Dracula renditions from the early 20th century. Looking at the acting styles adopted by the actors along with scene transitions reminiscent of silent films, the overwhelming sense of melodrama, it all feels like a film from the 1920's or 1930's if they had today's modern effects. It makes for an interesting experience. Speaking of effects...

Dracula in Werewolf form

The Effects. One of my biggest complaints with older Dracula films are the limitations of special effects. Bela Lugosi's Dracula never showed his fangs (can you believe that?). According to the story Dracula can shape-shift, climb along walls (spider-man style), fly, and all sorts of crazy things. One of the benefits of being an Academy Award winning director like Coppola is that movie studios practically throw money at you. This was just before Jurassic Park and the big CGI effects revolution so what we see in this film are some of the finest examples of miniature and scale models, matte paintings, suitmation, and trick photography ever seen. Dracula has never been more impressive and powerfully depicted. I love his monster forms of a bat and a wolf and green mist! The transformation into rats is awesome.

THE BAD

The Acting: I mentioned earlier that the film was done in a melodramatic style evocative of 1920's and 1930's horror films. That goes for the acting too. I'm sure the actors were instructed to act in this manner seeing as they're all doing it, but my god, some of them are just plain bad. The easy targets here are Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves but even Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are utterly ridiculous at times. Oldman in the "old Dracula" costume is downright laughable in instances. The "cursing God" scene during the prologue too is a little much. I understand what Coppola was trying to achieve by this approach but in retrospect perhaps more restraint should've been exercised here. Just my opinion. When Anthony Hopkins dry-humps another man's leg while spouting, "She is the devil's whore!" you know something went too far somewhere. It's no wonder Mel Brooks had some much material to work with when he made DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT.

THE VERDICT

Of the countless film adaptations of Bram Stoker's Dracula in existence, Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film stands as one of the best representations of the titular character. It also should be known that this film had more resources at its disposal than any other Dracula production, updated and advanced techniques too. The only thing that holds this film back is the ham-handed acting by its principle actors. It's all in keeping with Coppola's approach to the film though. The scenes of blood exploding from the walls could be a visual metaphor for the actors exploding with melodrama. While having an endless supply of resources with which to make this film amazing I still prefer what F.W. Murnau, Tod Browning, and Terence Fisher accomplished with so little. Still, Coppola's film is worth a look.

Overall Ranking: 6 out of 10

Nude-O-Meter: 4 out of 10

Check out these other Dracula films and decide for yourself who is the best Lord of the Vampires...

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Nosferatu Phantom Der Nacht (1979) 

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Dracula Untold (2014)

 

HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 29: INSIDIOUS (2011)

We've done a lot of horror movies so far this month, 28 horror movies to be exact. Some of them you may think aren't that scary. Some of them may be scarier than others. That's the beauty of horror films, what scares one person may not scare another. I've know people who find Home Invasion films and Slasher flicks frightening but laugh at films like THE EXORCIST. Supernatural films and monster movies do nothing for them. Then I know people who are just the opposite. I've even known people who were given nightmares by the original 1954 GODZILLA. It just goes to show you that what people are afraid of and not scared of runs the whole gamut and can be different from person to person. Obviously becoming too familiar with a scary movie lessens the fright over time. But that's no reason to put a horror movie down.

Here's a movie that scares me and I've seen it quite a few times already. INSIDIOUS directed by JAMES WAN, the same man who gave us the original SAW film, DEAD SILENCE, and THE CONJURING. Insidious was written by James Wan's frequent collaborator LEIGH WHANNELL, writer of Saw and Dead Silence. Suffice it to say these two men know how to scare an audience, either through realistic gore or supernatural entities. Insidious chooses to scare us with the latter by doing essentially a remake of POLTERGEIST but with a twist. "It's not the house that's haunted. It's your son."

THE PLOT

Josh and Renai and their three children just moved into a new house. There oldest son, Dalton, while playing alone in the attic slipped on a latter and hit his head. He seemed no worse for wear afterward. The next morning he didn't wake up. The doctors told Josh and Renai that there was no brain damage and that Dalton was medically healthy. They have no answers as to his coma-like state. Three months pass and Josh and Renai are allowed to bring their child home, still in a come. One day Renai hears another voice on the baby monitor whispering. When she goes into the baby's room to check on their infant daughter she finds no one else there save her and the baby.

One night she wakes hearing the baby crying. When she sleepily goes in to check she sees a dark figure standing over the crib. Then it suddenly disappears. Later she goes to tuck in her other son, Foster. He looks visibly scared. When she asks him why he's afraid he says he doesn't like it when Dalton walks around at night. The strange and frightening occurrences continue and grow progressively worse. Renai finally reaches out to a priest and through one way or another encounters Elise, a woman who specializes in helping people with unusual problems. What Elise reveals to them neither Renai or Josh are prepared for. "Dark entities are gathering around your son."

THE GOOD

The Building of Tension. Something you see a lot in horror films of the past but not so much with today's films is a director holding back, allowing the tension to build naturally, and when the suspense ripens letting the audience experience the scare. James Wan displays expert restraint and tension building far better than almost any director today. Not only that, but he understands the "less is more" philosophy. He doesn't overload the film with scare after scare, but instead plants little scares that build upon one another into one eventual big scare. This film has a handful of truly great scares versus an overload where some scares are good and some aren't. Quality over quantity.

The Music. Joseph Bishara supplies the score for this film and it is one of the most chilling and unnerving film scores I've ever heard. He utilizes string instruments in an ear piercing chorus that is both jarring and heart racing. Some film scores take a little bit to connect with the audience before you realize the heightened emotions associated with the sounds. Some scores you don't immediately connect with fear until the images and the sounds coalesce. Bishara's score instantly feels frightening and unholy. The music alone is terrifying and when combined with the haunting images on screen it makes for one scary experience.

The Ghosts. SPOILER ALERT: There are ghosts in this film and boy are they scary. It's a beautiful combination of make-up effects, lighting, and music. It seems as if the make-up on the ghosts was partially inspired by the ghost designs from the film CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962). It isn't grotesque or over-the-top but subtle and creepy, much like the whole of the film. The way they are presented is not how you'd expect either. There are traditional "jump scares" but then there are slow creep outs too where the camera lingers on them inching closer and closer. And sometimes there are no cues at all as the camera sweeps by with a ghost just standing in the corner. It gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.

THE BAD

The Demon. SPOILER ALERT. If there is one major weakness with this film it is the demon design. The set-up for the demon is wonderful. The sketches and shadowy scenes with it in the corner are great! Even the short glimpse over Patrick Wilson's shoulder is good. But the build up proved too effective because when we actually get a clear shot of it the sight is a let down. They use primarily make-up, body paint, and a few prostheses that come across as goofy looking rather than scary. Our imaginations have already made the demon far scarier than anything we could've seen. Why James Wan didn't keep with the "less is more" approach for the demon is beyond me. In the end it doesn't hurt the film much for me but I have heard that for other viewers the film lost all credibility upon the demon's reveal.

THE VERDICT

Don't let the PG-13 rating fool you. This is one scary movie. James Wan has shown in movies like Saw and Dead Silence that he is no stranger to the R rating. I doubt that he would've shied away from the R rating with this film had the movie needed it. He proves here that he doesn't need an R rating to scare the pants off us. He shows amazing restraint with this movie and it only makes the whole experience scarier. Insidious is a well done homage to Poltergeist and other haunted house films while throwing in its own twist offering up something rarely seen in these films. Insidious gets my full approval and still gives me the shivers.

Overall Ranking: 7 out of 10

Nude-O-Meter: 0 out of 10

Want more Insidious? Check these other posts linked below for more insight into the Insidious films...

Insidious Chapter 3 Full Review

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Carnival of Souls (1962)

HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 28: FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980)

My love affair with the FRIDAY THE 13TH franchise started a long time ago back when I was still taping the edited for television showings off of USA Network. I had a VHS tape with Friday the 13th parts V, VII, and VIII. That's far back for some. Not so far back for others. Anyway, every Friday the 13th I try to watch at least one Jason film if not more. This last February 13th I watched almost all of them and what films I didn't get to I watched the next day... Yes I know, I've got too much time on my hands. More to the point I like this franchise. I thought about skipping them this October since I watched them earlier this year. But with all the classic horror icons I've been watching lately I couldn't help myself.

Some may say it's blasphemy but the original Friday the 13th is not my favorite in the series. It is still a classic film that was very influential in its own right. The gore effects by Tom Savini are top notch. He is also the very first technician to design JASON. But Jason is barely in movie. That's what I don't like about the first film. SPOILER ALERT: Mrs. Voorhees, Jason's mother, is the killer. It's also the reason I don't care much for Part V. SPOILER ALERT: It's a Jason impostor killing people in Part V. I'm a Jason fan. I want to see Jason when I go to a Friday the 13th film. Technically Jason is in the original film and by virtue of it being the first it deserves a little respect. So let's get going...

THE PLOT

1957. Camp Crystal Lake, Ohio. A young handicapped boy was drown in the lake, his body was never recovered. In 1958 two camp counselors were murdered. The killer was never caught. The following three years the camp was met with various accounts of arson. Again, no perpetrator was apprehended. In 1962 another attempt to reopen the camp was met with bad water. The locals believed the camp was jinxed, cursed, and that no one should ever go there. One local claimed that the camp had a "death curse" on it calling it "Camp Blood." So the attempts to reopen the camp stopped... until 1980.

Friday June 13th 1980. A group of camp counselors arrive to do maintenance on the camp and get everything ready for the campers before they arrive. One by one the counselors begin disappearing. In the dead of night only one counselor remains, Alice. Then a woman arrives named Mrs. Voorhees. She comes after Alice with a knife saying, "Kill her, mommy. Kill her. Don't let her get away, mommy."

"I won't, Jason. I won't," she responds to herself.

THE GOOD

The special effects. I said it earlier and I am convinced this is the reason why the original Friday the 13th was so successful. TOM SAVINI nailed the gore effects in this film. He worked on several of the slasher flicks that started the 1980's horror boom and I am convinced it was his films that people found so popular. The really stand out deaths that showcase Tom Savini's work at its best, in my opinion, are Kevin Bacon's death with the arrow through the neck. The character Bill's death, pinned to the wall like a dart board. And of course the finale decapitation of Mrs. Voorhees.

Simplicity. Friday the 13th didn't try to be anything more than it was. It didn't bog the narrative down with a complicated convoluted plot. A group of carefree kids are alone in the woods with a homicidal maniac. That's it. It didn't try to wow the audience with an original plot nor blow away the director's guild by showcasing new and innovative photography or camerawork. All it did was display a classic story in the most realistic way possible for the time. It was this simplicity where the movie succeeded far better than any of its competitors.

THE BAD

Left behind. Tom Savini's work only got better as the years progressed. And what was so remarkable about the gore effects in Friday the 13th were later surpassed by Savini himself in later films. Now the simplicity of the story really stands out. It had no particularly interesting villain nor intriguing mythos. It was a simple revenge story without anything particularly special or noteworthy about the plot. This is where the later Friday the 13th films surpass the original, in my opinion. They gave us a wondrous villain in Jason and created a greater mythology. This is where I feel similar films like THE BURNING (1981), HALLOWEEN (1978), and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) surpass the original Friday with either a stronger villain or a stronger story. But the Friday series would soon catch up with the others and once Jason received his iconic hockey mask he'd show that he was every bit as evil as the others.

THE VERDICT

Nobody likes death in real life. But most of us like a good roller-coaster thrill ride and that's exactly what a movie like this does. In 1980 audiences flocked to the theater for a cheap exciting thrill ride, far cheaper than going to the amusement park and for some just as thrilling. But beyond that the film falls behind especially given that it's missing the one thing that has made the franchise so memorable: Jason. But what if he's here more than we think? It's just a theory (I know I'm not the only one to have thought of this) but maybe Jason is possessing his mother's body. She speaks in his voice and gets this passive look in her eyes (as if she's not the only one driving). Maybe Jason is responsible for more than we think in the first film? Anyway, it's fun to theorize with the mythos. All in all I only go back to this film because it is the first and not for any real love of the film itself. Sort of like an obligation to watch. That's a little harsh I know but it's just my personal feelings. With the exception of Part V I actually prefer the sequels to the original.

Overall Ranking: 6 out of 10

Nude-O-Meter: 1 out of 10

For more Friday the 13th check out these posts linked below...

Halloween Horror Days 2014: Friday the 13th (2009) 

Killer Profile: Jason Voorhees

February 13th 2015: Happy Friday the 13th!

June 13th 2014: Happy Friday the 13th!

HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 27: PSYCHO (1960)

As far as essential and influence horror films go, few rank higher than ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S PSYCHO. To the Hitchcock aficionado it is another of his great psychological thrillers. Since then it has become more than that. In the years that followed Psycho's release the film has become a template for realistic serious horror. For so long horror films were and still are in many cases regarded as B-movies. Hitchcock was one of the great directors that showed us how horror could be more than merely inferior filmmaking. Psycho is one of the finest examples.

Based off a novel by Robert Bloch, Psycho stars Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, and the incomparable Anthony Perkins as the infamous horror icon NORMAN BATES. Perkins's performance and Hitchcock's unique and misleading presentation helped change the way audiences perceived horror films and cinema as a whole. It also helped pave the way for a whole new sub-genre of horror films, a sub-genre that would take the cinema world by storm in the 1980's. Many consider Psycho the granddaddy of the Slasher film.

THE PLOT

Marion Crane just stole $40,000 in cash on a whim. She isn't a bad woman but temptation got the better of her. She took off on a Friday and has been driving across California all weekend, her conscience nagging at her the entire trip. During a rainstorm she accidentally leaves the highway and finds herself along a lonely stretch of road devoid of any civilization save an empty motel at the edge of a swamp. The torrential downpour forces her to pull into the motel. She rents a room for the night and has a strange chat with the caretaker, Norman. Then she goes to her room to shower. A woman with a knife rushes into the room and stabs her over and over. Marion falls down dead.

Norman rushes in afterward and finds Marion's body. He quickly cleans up the room and disposes of the body and belongings in the bog behind the motel. A week later a private investigator shows up looking for Marion. He insists on talking to the woman in the window of the house upon the hill near the motel. Norman says the woman is his mother and she can't see anyone. When the P.I. goes into the house secretly he encounters the woman and meets the same fate as Marion. Again Norman has to clean up after his mother. When even more people arrive Norman has to make a choice: give up his mother or let more people die. Can he let go of his mother? Or will mother let go of him?

THE GOOD

Twists and Turns. The structure of this movie is unique among other genre films of the era and even among movies today. At first you think that Janet Leigh's character Marion Crane is the central character and it is about a momentary lapse in judgement. Then we see her conscience grow heavier and heavier. She begins making strange and suspicious choices one after another that she wouldn't normally make. She imagines people's responses and reactions to her out of character decisions. It seems as though the movie is going to be about a seemingly normal woman's decent into madness. Then she is killed off without warning with a significant portion of the movie remaining.

Norman & Mother. Suddenly we find ourselves following a new lead character. The story becomes about Norman Bates and his homicidal mother. At first Norman appears like nothing more than a dutiful son trying to cover up his mother's murderous outbursts. As an audience member you think, "Okay, so the mother is the psycho." This notion persists through the film till the climactic confrontation in the fruit cellar and the big reveal at the end. By now most of us know the story and the plots twists but can you imagine being an audience member in 1960 seeing this movie for the first time? It had to have been mind blowing.

Technically perfect. The direction of Alfred Hitchcock need not be said because everyone already knows. It is simply amazing. I can think of only one shot in the film that doesn't work, the shot of Arbogast falling down the stairs while unique looks rather silly. Some may argue with me but other than that the movie is solid. Take into account Bernard Herrmann's classic frightening score the movie just keeps getting better and better. Then there's the acting. Anthony Perkins is absolutely amazing. He's handsome and meek and incredible misleading. He was so good in the role people couldn't disassociate him and the character of Norman, much to the detriment of his career.

THE BAD

Exposition heavy. Personally I don't have a problem with exposition scenes but nowadays such scenes in novels, movies, and video games are looked down on with disdain. While watching it today someone made the observation that the scene at the end of the film where the psychiatrist goes on his lengthy explanation and recap of his interrogation of Norman that, if made today, the filmmakers would show the audience the interrogation scene. For the era exposition was quite common place. Most critics now believe exposition to be weaknesses in storytelling. If there is one thing this film has a lot of is exposition.

THE VERDICT

My favorite horror director JOHN CARPENTER speaks very highly of this film and it has influenced many of his films as a result, from casting Janet Leigh in one of his own films to naming characters after characters in Psycho. And Carpenter is one of countless other filmmakers who have been effected by this film. The roots of the Slasher sub-genre of horror and psychological thrillers directly stem from this film and others of Hitchcock's. Calling it the "Citizen Kane" of horror films may not be entirely accurate but it comes damn close. If not for Psycho we wouldn't have my all-time favorite horror film, John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN.

Overall Ranking: 9 out of 10

Nude-O-Meter: 1 out of 10

I haven't watched it yet but I'm hearing great things about the television series BATES MOTEL. I need to give that show a watch.